This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "It is a settled rule that relief will not be granted to a party x x x when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or to a mistaken mode of procedure."[1] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| While the fault clearly lies with Duran, et al. themselves, they found it convenient to point fingers. To be sure, they were remiss in their duty of coordinating with their counsel on the progress of their pending case. The constant communication link needed to be established between diligent clients and their attorney did not obtain in this case. It is not surprising, therefore, that Duran and his group only filed their instant petition 14 years after the death of their counsel, Atty. Lara. Parties cannot blame their counsel for negligence when they themselves were guilty of neglect.[55] Relief cannot be granted to parties who seek to be relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy was due to their own negligence.[56] Equity serves the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.[57] Duran, et al., as are expected of prudent men concerned with their ordinary affairs, should have had periodically touched base at least to be apprised with the status of their case. Judiciousness in this regard would have alerted them about their counsel's death, thus enabling them to take the necessary steps to protect their claimed right and interest in the case. | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We first determine the validity of the service of the March 28, 2006 MeTC decision on petitioner's counsel who, as of that date, was already deceased. If a party to a case has appeared by counsel, service of pleadings and judgments shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. [10] Thus, when the MeTC decision was sent to petitioner's counsel, such service of judgment was valid and binding upon petitioner, notwithstanding the death of her counsel. It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership continues to exist lawfully, the partners are still alive, or its associates are still connected with the firm. [11] Litigants, represented by counsel, cannot simply sit back, relax, and await the outcome of their case. [12] It is the duty of the party-litigant to be in contact with her counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the progress of her case. [13] It is likewise the duty of the party to inform the court of the fact of her counsel's death. Her failure to do so means that she is negligent in the protection of her cause, and she cannot pass the blame to the court which is not tasked to monitor the changes in the circumstances of the parties and their counsels. | |||||
|
2005-06-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| What is more, petitioners were equally guilty of negligence. They failed to coordinate with their counsel on the progress of their case, when such is their duty as a party. Indeed, a party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty of neglect.[19] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As earlier mentioned, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision was denied for having been filed beyond the 15 day reglementary period. For her predicament, she blamed her former lawyer, Atty. Eutiquio A. Cajes. Petitioner should have known that "the client is bound by the acts of his counsel, even his mistakes and negligence."[6] We observe though that she is not entirely blameless for the denial of her motion for reconsideration. In Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,[7] we held that "litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case." Indeed, it is their duty as litigants to keep in constant touch with their counsel so as to be posted on the status of their case.[8] | |||||